Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
University of California Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Representations.
http://www.jstor.org
REP110_05
3/24/04
2:06 PM
Page 105
ADAM LOWENSTEIN
Living Dead:
Fearful Attractions of Film
Fear and film have always been intimate companions. One of
cinemas primal scenes testifies to this intimacy and originates from the
mediums very beginnings: the famous 1895 screening of Louis and Auguste
Lumires The Arrival of a Train at the Station (LArrive dun train en gare de la
Ciotat, 1895) at the Grand Caf in Paris. The spectators in the Grand Caf,
among cinemas very first public audiences, responded to the image of a train
pulling into a station with pure terror. The power of this new technology to
grant movement to photography was so overwhelming that viewers turned
and fled from the train as if it threatened to crush them. For this audience, the
cinematic image of the train became the train itselfsomething to fear.
At least thats how the story goes. The film historian Tom Gunning points
out how the oft-repeated accounts of this incident appear more mythological
than truthful after careful study of evidence from the period. Writing in
1989, Gunning observes how this primal scene at the cinema lives on nevertheless, how the terrorized spectator of the Grand Caf still stalks the
imagination of film theorists who envision audiences submitting passively to
an all-dominating apparatus, hypnotized and transfixed by its illusionist
power.1 Today, this situation in film studies has changed considerably, due
in no small part to Gunnings own pathbreaking scholarship.2 His description of early cinema (18951906) as dominated by an aesthetic he calls the
cinema of attractions has become perhaps the single most influential concept in film studies over the last twenty years.3
Gunnings definition of the cinema of attractions is worth quoting at
some length, as I will use it to anchor my own discussion of fear and film to
key debates within the discipline of cinema and media studies:
The cinema of attractions directly solicits spectator attention, inciting visual curiosity, and supplying pleasure through an exciting spectaclea unique event, whether
A B S T R A C T This essay analyzes the relationship between fear and film by exploring the theoretical
concept of attractions and its value for a historical understanding of three seminal American horror
films directed by George A. Romero: Night of the Living Dead (1968), Land of the Dead (2005), and Diary of
the Dead (2008). All three films belong to the same Living Dead series, so the essay focuses especially
on their shared temporal relations to historical trauma through issues of deferral, belatedness, and
retranscription. / REPRESENTATIONS 110. Spring 2010 The Regents of the University of California. ISSN
07346018, electronic ISSN 1533855X, pages 10528 All rights reserved. Direct requests for permission
to photocopy or reproduce article content to the University of California Press at http://www.
ucpressjournals.com/reprintinfo.asp. DOI:10.1525/rep.2010.110.1.105.
105
REP110_05
3/24/04
2:06 PM
Page 106
This initial formulation of the cinema of attractions, revised and expanded by Gunning in a series of linked essays he began publishing in 1986,
already suggests a number of reasons why the concept has continued to resonate so powerfully with film scholars within and beyond the subfield of
early cinema. A cinema of attractions uncovers an alternative set of film aesthetics and film histories that had been relegated previously to the margins of
what was usually assumed to be central: films evolution as a narrative-based,
storytelling medium. Prior to the recognition of a cinema of attractions, film
historians routinely proceeded as if it were cinemas destiny to develop the
sort of narratives we now associate with the classical Hollywood stylethe
dominant form of commercial film style in the United States from roughly
1917 to the present, with remarkable worldwide influence.5 Classical Hollywood style emphasizes psychologically motivated, goal-oriented characters as
the active agents who move through cause-effect chains of events. These
events are based on a series of temporal deadlines that resolve with a strong
degree of closure by the time the film concludes.6 The result is a film style
where telling a story is the basic formal concern and conventions of realism arise from commitments to concealment of artifice, comprehensible
and unambiguous storytelling, and a fundamental emotional appeal that
transcends class and nation.7
If classical Hollywood style is posited as the norm, then filmmaking practices that deviate from it risk becoming seen as primitive (such as early cinema)
or excessive (such as genres where spectacle often seems to trump narrative,
including musicals and horror films). The cinema of attractions has come to
stand for an alternative tradition, one that embraces a set of practices and conventions different from those of classical Hollywood style. Through the lens of
a cinema of attractions, what once seemed primitive or excessive now
emerges as a tradition in its own right, worthy of engagement on its own terms.8
Gunning himself has always maintained that a cinema of attractions must be
understood as existing alongside and in dialogue with those narrative priorities
106
R E P R E S E N TAT I O N S
REP110_05
3/24/04
2:06 PM
Page 107
at the heart of classical Hollywood style, rather than as a mode incommensurable with it or fundamentally opposed to it. According to Gunning, the fate
of the cinema of attractions after its dominance during the early cinema
period is not disappearance but relocation; it goes underground, both into
certain avant-garde practices and as a component of narrative films, more evident in some genres . . . than in others. 9 If the entire notion of a cinema of
attractions springs from the primal encounteras mythically persistent as it is
historically inconsistentbetween fearsome film and fearful audiences, then
what does the horror film genre in particular have to tell us about the attractions of cinema? Is it possible that this genre, with its multiple and varied
investments in shocking, terrifying, disturbing, and haunting its viewers, has
more to teach us than perhaps any other about the fearful attractions of film?
This essay attempts to generate some provisional answers to these difficult
questions.
Much of my own previous research can be seen as responding to similar
questions. I have argued elsewhere that the modern horror film (post-1960),
in particular cases tied to specific national contexts, confronts viewers with
the traumatic legacies of events such as the Holocaust, Hiroshima, and the
Vietnam War. I have contended that the allegorical method these horror
films employ to engage historical trauma results in a more confrontational
address of the spectator than is found in those contemporaneous art films
that are often more explicit in their references to traumatic historical events
(and always more critically praised). My ultimate goal was to trace a series of
allegorical moments in these horror films that enact a shocking collision
of film, spectator, and history where registers of bodily space and historical
time are disrupted, confronted, and intertwined.10
The concept of a cinema of attractions helped to inspire my formulation
of the allegorical moment in several ways. First, my sense of the horror
films direct, visceral address of the spectators body was influenced by the
aesthetic of attractions described by Gunning. Second, my claim that the
excess of the horror film could be construed as a strength rather than a
weakness when compared with more legitimate art films mirrored the
dynamics of Gunnings encounter between early cinema and classical Hollywood style. Finally, I wished to extend the logic of a cinema of attractions to
areas that seemed absent or marginalized in Gunnings model. For example,
Gunnings emphasis on the differences between early cinemas attractions
and classical Hollywood styles narrative-driven pleasures often constructs a
divide between the bodily, sensational aspects of cinematic spectatorship and
its more rational, cognitive dimensions focused on storytelling. Although
Gunning devotes considerable care and attention to reminding us that such
distinctions must not be perceived as absolute or noninteractive, his interest
in elucidating one set of terms rather than the other necessarily highlights
Living Dead: Fearful Attractions of Film
107
REP110_05
3/24/04
2:06 PM
Page 108
R E P R E S E N TAT I O N S
REP110_05
3/24/04
2:06 PM
Page 109
goal of reflecting upon how cinema represents trauma and inspires fear. In
short, I want to examine a deferred film to grapple with cinemas relation to
the complex temporalities of traumatemporalities that Sigmund Freud
famously characterized as nachtrglich, or deferred.13
Although Freuds concept of Nachtrglichkeit, or deferred action, was
never fully defined within his writings, Jean Laplanche and Jean-Bertrand
Pontalis note that the term crops up repeatedly and constantly . . . from
very early on and that it was indisputably looked upon by Freud as part of
his conceptual equipment. Laplanche and Pontalis define deferred action
as an idea frequently used by Freud in connection with his view of psychical
temporality and causality: experiences, impressions and memory-traces may
be revised at a later date to fit in with fresh experiences or with the attainment of a new stage of development. They may in that event be endowed not
only with a new meaning but also with psychical effectiveness.14 Freud
always conceived of the psyche as a stratified mechanism, where memories
are subject to rearrangement and retranscription according to shifts in
time and experience, but he usually reserves deferred action for experiences
impossible for the subject to integrate in a meaningful way at the time of
their occurrence.15 As Laplanche and Pontalis note, the traumatic event is
the epitome of such unassimilated experience.16
If a memory is deferred, or revised, or reimagined in possibly fantastic
ways commensurate with the affective rather than the veridical truth of traumatic experience, is this memory still true? Janet Walker offers the valuable
observation that when we enter the realm of what she calls the vicissitudes of
traumatic memory, dichotomies such as true/false, however tempting to
enlist in the face of circumstances often accompanied by dire personal and
political consequences, are simply not adequate to the complexity of the
problems that have surfaced.17 What we need instead is a more nuanced theoretical approach to traumatic memory that permits us to weigh concerns
such as truth and falsehood alongside questions of how exactly trauma and
memory interact, with particular sensitivity to the variety of possibilities with
which traumatic memory may manifest itself. I believe one promising avenue
of research into detailing these possibilities is to study how media deals with
the representation of traumatic events and to learn from these representations what the range of responses to trauma may look like. Such research
should not simply equate media representations (or our reactions to them)
with individual psychological mechanisms, but use the media representations as touchstones for generating questions that may or may not illuminate
certain psychological or social processes.
I believe that since the horror film is a genre built upon depicting frightening, often traumatic experiences yet rarely considered serious enough to portray traumatic history, its engagements with historical trauma are particularly
Living Dead: Fearful Attractions of Film
109
REP110_05
3/24/04
2:06 PM
Page 110
R E P R E S E N TAT I O N S
REP110_05
3/24/04
2:06 PM
FIGURE
Page 111
In one of the climactic acts of the zombie siege on Fiddlers Green, Big
Daddy corners a fleeing Kaufman in his getaway car. With Kaufman protected
behind locked doors, Big Daddy reaches for a nearby gasoline hose and pierces
the cars windshield with its nozzle, sending a stream of gasoline pouring inside
(fig. 1). Big Daddy then walks away, leaving the underground garage. Kaufman,
more irritated than mystified by Big Daddys behavior, steps out of the car and
removes the spewing gasoline hose, tossing it on the ground carelessly. As he
tends to the duffel bags packed with cash he has brought with him, he is
threatened by the entrance of Cholo (John Leguizamo), a Latino soldier for
hire whose dreams of upward mobility have been crushed by Kaufman. The
two fire weapons at each other, Cholo missing his target and Kaufman hitting
his. So Kaufman is surprised when, shortly afterwards, Cholo rises to menace
him once again. But of course Cholo is not dead, but undead. As the two
struggle, Big Daddy returns to the garage with an explosive canister that he
rolls toward Kaufmans car and the pool of gasoline that has collected around
it. The ensuing blast sends Cholo flying away from the car while Kaufman is
apparently immolated, his flaming dollar bills sailing in the air like confetti as
the car burns and Big Daddy looks on.
This scene is a striking example of how Romero interweaves commentary
on class inequities with imagery tied to the contemporary trauma of the Iraq
War. Romero has often said that Land of the Dead is his attempt to explore the
post-9/11 American mentality, and that Kaufmans administration of Fiddlers
Living Dead: Fearful Attractions of Film
111
REP110_05
3/24/04
2:06 PM
Page 112
R E P R E S E N TAT I O N S
REP110_05
3/24/04
2:06 PM
FIGURE
Page 113
2. Ben in Night of the Living Dead (George A. Romero, 1968, Image Ten).
113
REP110_05
3/24/04
2:06 PM
Page 114
R E P R E S E N TAT I O N S
REP110_05
3/24/04
2:06 PM
Page 115
115
REP110_05
3/24/04
2:06 PM
Page 116
only exist, in the end, through a series of deferred actions means that any
glimmer of hope must be located within cyclical histories of pain.
A New (Re)Vision: Diary of the Dead
When Land of the Dead retranscribes Night of the Living Dead by
concluding with Big Daddys survival rather than Bens murder, does Big
Daddys status as something to be frightened of disappear? After all, doesnt
Big Daddys survival, his provisional fulfillment of viewer hopes so cruelly
dashed when Ben dies, consolidate his identity as protagonist rather than
monster? In other words, are we frightened (if at all) by the same things in
Night of the Living Dead as in Land of the Dead? Romeros most recent contribution to the series, Diary of the Dead, offers a useful vantage point on these
questions.
Diary of the Dead, perhaps even more than Land of the Dead, encourages
viewers to perform the work of retranscription. While all of the previous
Living Dead sequels proceeded chronologically, depicting the zombie
plague at increasingly advanced stages (but always with a different set of
characters), Diary of the Dead returns to the temporal frame of Night of the Living Dead. The zombie plague has just arrivedwe return to where we began
forty years before.
Of course, it is fair to ask whether most viewers will remember or have
even seen a film released four decades earlier. Some doubtlessly will not. But
several factors suggest that many viewers will indeed be ready to retranscribe
Diary of the Dead alongside the previous Living Dead films. First, the nature
of horror film fandom in general often inspires unusually loyal, informed
devotion to the genre and sometimes extends to forms of identification with
horror-oriented subcultural communities (such as goths).25 Second, the
status of the Living Dead films as cult cinema, a specialized set of films
spread across a wide variety of genres that for any number of reasons (oddness, originality, shock value, unheralded excellence, sublime awfulness, particular kinds of cultural or historical significance) encourages repeated
viewings, revival screenings, and avid word-of-mouth sometimes bordering
on worship long after the date of original release.26 Third, the popularity of
prerecorded entertainment technologies for the home, from VCRs in the
1970s to todays high-definition DVD players and Internet-based distribution
hubs, means that the Living Dead films (like thousands of others) are
more accessible to a wider audience than ever before.27 The flipside of this
accessibility is invisibility, with the deluge of film titles easily available potentially drowning each other out. But it is precisely those films like the Living
Dead series, with strong name recognition and a pronounced cultural presence grounded in deep, sustained appreciation among critics and fans alike,
116
R E P R E S E N TAT I O N S
REP110_05
3/24/04
2:06 PM
Page 117
117
REP110_05
3/24/04
2:06 PM
FIGURE
Page 118
At one level, this shot of the mutilated female zombie functions very
much as an attraction in Gunnings sense. The confrontational address of
the audience, the direct look at the camera that acknowledges the spectator,
the shocking image of an execution, the emphasis on pure display rather
than narrative developmentall are markers of a cinema of attractions.
Even Debras voice-over that accompanies this image works similarly to the
showman or magician often present either within the early films analyzed by
Gunning or outside them, as speakers in the tradition of carnival barkers
who drew attention to the spectacle by performing the important temporal
role of announcing the event to come, focusing not only the attention but
the anticipation of the audience. Debras voice fulfills this announcing gesture by explaining the source of the spectacle we are about to witness, as
well as how what we will see was deliberately staged by the hunters.28 She sets
us up for the attraction itself.
In other ways, this spectacle of the mutilated zombie operates somewhat
differently than an attraction. Debras voice extends the confrontational
address of the attraction by speaking to us directly over the grisly final shot:
Are we worth saving? You tell me. But her voice is a far more developed narrative presence than are those of the magicians and barkers of early cinema.
In addition to being a central protagonist, she has contributed voice-over narration from the very beginning of the film; by the films end, we know that
even if authorship of The Death of Death is attributed to Jason, it could not have
been completed without Debras editingJason himself dies before he can
118
R E P R E S E N TAT I O N S
REP110_05
3/24/04
2:06 PM
Page 119
finish this task. So Debra, as editor and narrator, shapes The Death of Death (as
Romero shapes Diary of the Dead) into a narrative film, rather than a disjunctive series of attractions.
But it is not only Debras editing and narration that transform the temporality of this final scene in Diary of the Dead into something other than the
temporality Gunning assigns to the attraction. For Gunning, the attractions
temporality is limited to the pure present tense of its appearance, where a
now you see it, now you dont temporal frame departs from narrative temporalitys movement from now to then, with causality as a frequent means of
vectorizing temporal progression.29 The unmistakable visual markers of
lynching in this scenethe hanging from the tree, the redneck hunters, the
execution staged as entertainment not only for the hunters themselves but
for audiences imagined by the camera operator, the distribution of this
lynching via the Internet mimicking earlier distribution of lynching photographs as postcardscollide with retranscription to generate the now is
then temporality of the allegorical moment, where historical trauma infiltrates the shocking spectacle and confrontational viewer address of the
attraction.30 Even though Diary of the Deads lynching features a white female
zombie, there is a powerful invitation to retranscribe her as analogous to
Ben, the black man lynched (at least figuratively) at the conclusion of Night
of the Living Dead. Bens body, like that of the female zombie, is destroyed
and humiliated by a redneck posse that assumes he is inhuman. Where the
female zombie hangs from a tree, Bens corpse is dragged by meat-hooks
and ultimately consumed in a bonfirein both cases, the visual iconography
of lynching overwhelms the images. Through retranscription linked across
films, coupled with the invocation of traumatic events linked across history,
the pure present tense of the attraction metamorphoses into the past as
present tense of the allegorical moment.
When past and present meet in the final scene of Diary of the Dead, the
connotations attached to lynching radiate not only toward slavery and the
civil rights struggle, but also toward the disastrously racialized mismanagement of Hurricane Katrinas aftermath in 2005 (footage of which appears
earlier in Diary of the Dead) and a number of humiliations connected to the
Iraq War. The torture of the female zombie by a band of smiling rednecks
eager to post their handiwork on the Internet evokes the photographs that
exposed the Abu Ghraib torture scandal (April 2004) as well as the widely
publicized mutilation, burning, and hanging of bodies belonging to American contractors by Iraqi insurgents in Fallujah (March 2004). At Abu
Ghraib, American forces humiliated Iraqis with the same gleeful, grinning
pride that often appears in the faces of observers in lynching photographs. In
Fallujah, Iraqi insurgents engaged in a practice called saleh in Iraqi Arabic,
which translates roughly as the lethal public humiliation of an enemy; at
Living Dead: Fearful Attractions of Film
119
REP110_05
3/24/04
2:06 PM
Page 120
least one journalist described saleh as the act of lynching.31 When the
echoes of these humiliations of Iraqis by Americans and Americans by Iraqis
join together with the shame of Hurricane Katrina and a long history of
racist violence in America epitomized by lynching, what does this allegorical
moment that concludes Diary of the Dead become? How do spectators interpret it? What are they afraid of?
The allegorical moment, like any theorized act of spectatorship, can only
represent a horizon of possibilities for potential viewer reactions. No physiological sensors or strategic interviews or questionnaire results can ever tell the
whole story about a matter as complicated and idiosyncratic as how exactly
spectators interact with a film. This is not to say that such approaches are incapable of providing valuable information about certain aspects of the spectatorship experience. Indeed, the increasing interest in cognitivism in film studies
over the past twenty years constitutes a contemporaneous and often strikingly
different theoretical model to the cinema of attractions.32 Where the former
concentrates on rather basic, empirically observed viewer processes connected
to deciphering a narrative or registering an emotion, the latter focuses on
more hypothetical, less easily quantified dimensions of spectatorship attached
to historical and philosophical concepts such as modernity.33
Cognitivist studies of the horror film in particular have tended to suggest
universalist, often ahistorical explanations for what motivates viewer responses
of fear and/or horror. For example, Joanne Cantor and Mary Beth Olivers
claim that fright reactions to horror films can be accounted for largely (at
least among younger viewers) through theories of stimulus generalization,
where stimuli and events that cause fear in the real world will produce a
fear response when they appear in movies, so that natural fears of actual
distortions and deformities will be replicated in viewer responses to similar
sights in horror films.34 Or Nol Carrolls claim that horror film monsters
frighten us through their impurity, their anthropologically defined status as
categorically interstitial, categorically contradictory, incomplete, or formless.35 For Carroll, zombies inspire fear due to their interstitial nature as both
living and dead. But what of the empathic viewer responses to Big Daddy in
Land of the Dead and the lynched female zombie in Diary of the Dead that I have
suggested in conjunction with notions of the allegorical moment and retranscription? Cognitive fears of impurity or deformity, bound so tightly to an
assumed equivalence between how we process a film and how we process the
real world, do not adequately account for the spectatorship possibilities I
have outlined: empathy mixed with fear, visceral sensation mixed with historical consciousness.
Robin Woods influential psychoanalytic/Marxist account of the horror
film seems more in line with my concerns than the cognitivist model, at least
at first glance. Wood distills the basic structure of the horror film into the
120
R E P R E S E N TAT I O N S
REP110_05
3/24/04
2:06 PM
Page 121
121
REP110_05
3/24/04
2:06 PM
Page 122
reappear and strike poses in a timeless allegorical space that sums up the
action of the piece.42 The conclusion of Diary of the Dead does not reintroduce the principal cast as in the original apotheosis endings of early cinema,
but it does provide a spectacular finale that condenses the film into one summarizing image. This image may not make sense as narrative, but it makes
profound sense as an attraction. It pulls together the confrontational elements aimed at viewers throughout the film and throughout the Living
Dead series as a whole. Its evocation and/or retranscription of Iraq, Katrina,
Vietnam, civil rights, and slavery characterize its space as allegorical but not
timeless. Its temporality depends on the attractions spectacular now you
see it, now you dont time of display, but it cannot be limited to the pure
present tense Gunning assigns to the cinema of attractions.43 Instead, this
attraction exists in the past as present tense of the allegorical moment,
where historical trauma informs the confrontation delivered by sensational
spectacle. This is not to say that Gunnings account of an attractions temporality excludes the possibility of historical reference, for his notion of timeless
allegorical space is clearly conditioned, like my own, by Walter Benjamins
notion of allegory as a radical disruption of conventional historical continuity.44 What I am calling attention to here is an important difference in emphasis, rather than disagreementwhere Gunning highlights the attractions
allegorical space, I am highlighting its allegorical time.
Given my focus on retranscription, perhaps it is more accurate to
describe the allegorical moments temporality in terms of pasts as present
tense. The plural pasts remind us of the multiple points of contact offered
to the spectator between a film and history, as well as between a series of
films and histories. By the same logic, the quality of fear provoked by the
allegorical moment necessarily encompasses a wide range of possible affect,
including (but not limited to) horror, dread, disgust, and anxiety. In fact,
this fearful affect may be inseparable from an even more expansive variety of
feelings such as empathy, anger, amusement, and admiration. In other
words, the allegorical moment demands an approach to fear in film that
matches its approach to history in film: attentive to plural, multilayered
interactions between spectator and cinema that span cognition and sensation, knowledge and affect, past and present.45
For example, viewers may respond to the final scene in Diary of the Dead by
experiencing a mixture of sense and sensation that could produce very different answers to Debras question, Are we worth saving? Sadness and outrage
inspired by how history repeats itself, how the lessons of one lynching and one
war fail to prevent the occurrence of others, may leave some viewers fearful of
a future or a present where something like this female zombies victimization
could happen to them. Other viewers may see the rednecks as a throwback to
the posse that kills Ben in Night of the Living Dead, making these rednecks
122
R E P R E S E N TAT I O N S
REP110_05
3/24/04
2:06 PM
Page 123
closer to a kind of memorial for fears lodged in the past than to an active
source of fear in the present. Still others may feel relief that the fearful threat
of the zombies (Iraqi insurgents? American contractors? Vietcong? U.S. soldiers? Blacks? Whites?) can be controlled, even mocked, by human forces
however temporarily. These examples are meant to be not an exhaustive
catalog of possible spectator responses, but a preliminary list that suggests how
the allegorical moment might function. However speculative and incomplete,
I hope it is enough to convey how formulations concerning the horror films
production of fear through stimulus generalization, cognitive categorizations
of impurity, or diagnoses of progressive and reactionary political representation cannot fully explain fears complexity in the allegorical moment.
Fear in the allegorical moment, when it is filtered through its similarities
to and differences from a cinema of attractions, also makes room for viewer
responses to films governed by what Gunning calls an aesthetic of astonishment. When Gunning theorizes how early cinema spectators may have
responded to the cinema of attractions, he describes an attitude in which
astonishment and knowledge perform a vertiginous dance, and pleasure
derives from the energy released by the play between the shock caused by this
illusion of danger and delight in its pure illusion. The jolt experienced
becomes a shock of recognition. Far from fulfilling a dream of total replication of reality . . . the experience of the first projections exposes the hollow
center of the cinematic illusion.46 In the case of Diary of the Deads conclusion,
then, an astonished spectator might cringe with fear or disgust at the sight of
the mutilated female zombie but simultaneously admire the skillful combination of digital and prosthetic special effects that made this image possible. The
point is that viewer responses of fear and knowledge are not mutually exclusive, whether the knowledge stems from awareness of cinematic artifice as in
Gunnings aesthetic of astonishment, or from awareness of historical trauma
as in the allegorical moment. Neither, then, are viewer responses of fear and
pleasure mutually exclusive. The allegorical moment insists that traumatic history can be felt as well as knownand that this knowledge can arrive as a shocking confrontation and/or as a playful encounter with cinematic illusions.
Playful, pleasure, and illusion need not signal triviality. As Gunning
notes, one of the most sophisticated observers of early cinema, the Russian
writer and intellectual Maxim Gorky, was already attuned to the double-edged
nature of cinemas ability to communicate visceral threat alongside empty illusions.47 Gorky, writing about his attendance at a projection of Lumire films at
the Nizhni-Novgorod Fair in 1896, registers both sensational astonishment
(the extraordinary impression it creates is so unique and complex that I
doubt my ability to describe it with all its nuances) and knowing disillusionment (this mute, gray life finally begins to disturb and depress you).48 Gorky
also experiences fear. When faced with The Arrival of a Train, he begins by
Living Dead: Fearful Attractions of Film
123
REP110_05
3/24/04
2:06 PM
Page 124
Notes
This essay is a slightly revised version of my contribution to the Fear: Multidisciplinary Perspectives workshop sponsored by the Shelby Cullom Davis Center
for Historical Studies, Princeton University, in April 2008. I wish to thank Jan
Plamper and Benjamin Lazier, the workshop organizers, for inviting me, and
the workshop participants for contributing such thought-provoking discussion.
I am grateful also for the earlier opportunities to present some of this material
at conferences held at Florida State University and the University of Florida.
Special thanks to Tom Gunning, who graciously commented on this essay and
helped me to improve it; of course, I do not wish to imply that he would necessarily agree with all of my claims.
124
R E P R E S E N TAT I O N S
REP110_05
3/24/04
2:06 PM
Page 125
1. Tom Gunning, An Aesthetic of Astonishment: Early Film and the (In)Credulous Spectator, in Leo Braudy and Marshall Cohen, eds., Film Theory and Criticism: Introductory Readings, 6th ed. (New York, 2004), 863. For a different
account of this history that places more emphasis on the possibility of actually
panicking viewers, see Stephen Bottomore, The Panicking Audience? Early
Cinema and the Train Effect, Historical Journal of Film, Radio, and Television
19, no. 2 (1999): 177216.
2. For a useful sampling of these alternative approaches to theorizing film spectatorship, see Linda Williams, ed., Viewing Positions: Ways of Seeing Film (New
Brunswick, NJ, 1995).
3. On the influence of the cinema of attractions concept, see Wanda Strauven,
ed., The Cinema of Attractions Reloaded (Amsterdam, 2006). This volume includes
a detailed account from Gunning concerning the conceptual genesis of the
cinema of attractions and how he developed the term through collaborations
and conversations with a number of scholars, especially Andr Gaudreault. See
Tom Gunnings chapter in this volume, Attractions: How They Came into the
World, 3139.
4. Tom Gunning, The Cinema of Attractions: Early Film, Its Spectator and the
Avant-Garde, in Thomas Elsaesser, ed., Early Cinema: Space Frame Narrative
(London, 1990), 5859.
5. See David Bordwell, Janet Staiger, and Kristin Thompson, The Classical Hollywood Cinema: Film Style and Mode of Production to 1960 (New York, 1985). The critical debates surrounding the concept of classical Hollywood style (along with
related notions such as preclassical, postclassical, and nonclassical) have been
vigorous and long-lasting. See, for example, Jane Gaines, ed., Classical Hollywood
Narrative: The Paradigm Wars (Durham, NC, 1992); Steve Neale and Murray
Smith, eds., Contemporary Hollywood Cinema (London, 1998); and David Bordwell,
The Way Hollywood Tells It: Story and Style in Modern Movies (Berkeley, 2006).
6. David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson, Film Art: An Introduction, 8th ed. (New
York, 2008), 9496.
7. Bordwell, Staiger, and Thompson, The Classical Hollywood Cinema, 3.
8. In this spirit, some scholars have argued against the assumption that classical
Hollywood style adheres more closely to norms grounded in realist conventions rather than excessive, melodramatic ones. See, for example, Rick Altman,
Dickens, Griffith, and Film Theory Today, in Gaines, Classical Hollywood Narrative, 947; Linda Williams, Film Bodies: Gender, Genre, and Excess, Film
Quarterly 44, no. 4 (Summer 1991): 213; and Linda Williams, Melodrama
Revised, in Nick Browne, ed., Refiguring American Film Genres: Theory and History (Berkeley, 1998), 4288.
9. Gunning, The Cinema of Attractions, 57.
10. Adam Lowenstein, Shocking Representation: Historical Trauma, National Cinema,
and the Modern Horror Film (New York, 2005), 2.
11. For my divergence from Gunning on this score and related discussion, see
ibid., 4647.
12. For a brief summary of the origins and influence of the series, as well as an
argument for Night of the Living Dead as one of the most important American
films ever produced independently, see Adam Lowenstein, Night of the Living
Dead, in John White and Sabine Haenni, eds., Fifty Key American Films (London,
2009), 14247.
125
REP110_05
3/24/04
2:06 PM
Page 126
13. I do not make this turn to Freud casually or mechanically, but with the conviction that his work continues to provide a valuable stimulus for certain kinds of
research in both the humanities and the social sciences, particularly in relation
to trauma studies. For an eloquent recent statement (and enactment) of this
position, see E. Ann Kaplan, Trauma Culture: The Politics of Terror and Loss in
Media and Literature (New Brunswick, NJ, 2005), esp. 2441.
14. Jean Laplanche and Jean-Bertrand Pontalis, The Language of Psychoanalysis,
trans. Donald Nicholson-Smith (1967; reprint, New York, 1973), 111.
15. See Sigmund Freud, letter to Wilhelm Fliess, December 6, 1896; quoted in
Laplanche and Pontalis, The Language of Psychoanalysis, 112.
16. Ibid.
17. See Janet Walker, The Vicissitudes of Traumatic Memory and the Postmodern
History Film, in E. Ann Kaplan and Ban Wang, eds., Trauma and Cinema: CrossCultural Explorations (Hong Kong, 2004), 12344.
18. It is important to note that Big Daddy is never shown participating in the most
monstrous aspect of zombie behavior: eating the flesh of the living.
19. See, for example, Romeros comments in the documentary Undead Again:
The Making of Land of the Dead, Land of the Dead DVD (Universal, 2005).
20. George A. Romero, quoted in Michael Rowe, Land of the Dead: Home of the
Grave, Fangoria 244 (June 2005): 97.
21. See Lowenstein, Shocking Representation, 15364. See also Sumiko Higashi,
Night of the Living Dead: A Horror Film About the Horrors of the Vietnam Era,
in Linda Dittmar and Gene Michaud, eds., From Hanoi to Hollywood: The Vietnam
War in American Film (New Brunswick, NJ, 1990), 17588; and Ben Hervey,
Night of the Living Dead (London, 2008).
22. Sigmund Freud, Project for a Scientific Psychology, in The Standard Edition of
the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, ed. and trans. James Strachey
(London, 1957), 1:356. As an editorial footnote points out, this early account
of prepubescent sexuality would itself be revised by Freud soon afterwards with
his discovery of infantile sexuality (356 n.1).
23. Of course, this retranscription may also be understood as channeled through
Dawn of the Dead and Day of the Deadboth of these sequels, it should be noted,
also include central black male characters. For a related analysis that focuses
particularly on issues of gender in Romeros zombie films and their revision in
the 1990 remake of Night of the Living Dead (written by Romero, directed by
Tom Savini), see Barry Keith Grant, Taking Back the Night of the Living Dead:
George Romero, Feminism, and the Horror Film, in Barry Keith Grant, ed.,
The Dread of Difference: Gender and the Horror Film (Austin, 1996), 200212.
24. In the documentary Undead Again, Romero speaks about how he and Dennis
Hopper connected immediately as guys who were disappointed that the 60s
didnt work out the way we expected they would. When Hopper offered to play
Kaufman like Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Romero responded,
Thats exactly where Im going with this; this is the Bush administration.
25. On horror fandom, see Matt Hills, The Pleasures of Horror (London, 2005). On
goth subculture, see Lauren M. E. Goodlad and Michael Bibby, eds., Goth:
Undead Subculture (Durham, NC, 2007). The prominence of Romeros name in
advertising for all of the Living Dead sequels indicates an expectation of
auteurist recognition and series knowledge among viewers.
126
R E P R E S E N TAT I O N S
REP110_05
3/24/04
2:06 PM
Page 127
26. On cult films, see Mark Jancovich, Antonio Lzaro Reboll, Julian Stringer, and
Andy Willis, eds., Defining Cult Movies: The Cultural Politics of Oppositional Taste
(Manchester, 2003); J. P. Telotte, ed., The Cult Film Experience: Beyond All Reason
(Austin, 1991); J. Hoberman and Jonathan Rosenbaum, Midnight Movies (New
York, 1983); and Danny Peary, Cult Movies (New York, 1981).
27. For a study of the implications of cinema as a home viewing experience, see
Barbara Klinger, Beyond the Multiplex: Cinema, New Technologies, and the Home
(Berkeley, 2006).
28. Tom Gunning, Now You See It, Now You Dont: The Temporality of the Cinema of Attractions, Velvet Light Trap 32 (Fall 1993): 7.
29. Ibid., 7, 11.
30. For examples of lynching photographs, see James Allen, ed., Without Sanctuary:
Lynching Photography in America (Santa Fe, NM, 2000).
31. Nir Rosen, FallujahInside the Iraqi Resistance: Part 1, Losing It, Asia Times,
July 15, 2004 (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FG16Aa02.html;
accessed March 15, 2008).
32. For important examples of cognitivist research in film studies, see David Bordwell, Narration in the Fiction Film (Madison, WI, 1985); and Carl Plantinga and
Greg M. Smith, eds., Passionate Views: Film, Cognition, and Emotion (Baltimore,
MD, 1999). For a polemical argument in support of cognitivism as a superior
alternative to film theory of the 1970s and 1980s dominated by psychoanalytic
and Marxist approaches, see David Bordwell and Nol Carroll, eds., Post-Theory:
Reconstructing Film Studies (Madison, WI, 1996). For a valuable compendium of
1970s and 1980s film theory, see Philip Rosen, ed., Narrative, Apparatus, Ideology: A Film Theory Reader (New York, 1986). On psychoanalytic approaches to
the horror film, see Steven Jay Schneider, ed., Horror Film and Psychoanalysis:
Freuds Worst Nightmare (Cambridge, 2004); and Carol J. Clover, Men, Women,
and Chain Saws: Gender in the Modern Horror Film (Princeton, 1992).
33. These differences in theoretical stance have fueled an ongoing critical debate
in film studies around the so-called modernity thesis. For accounts of this
debate, see Ben Singer, Melodrama and Modernity: Early Sensational Cinema and
Its Contexts (New York, 2001), esp. 1735, 10130; and Adam Lowenstein, Cinema, Benjamin, and the Allegorical Representation of September 11, Critical
Quarterly 45, nos. 12 (Spring/Summer 2003): 7384. One particularly significant branch of the modernity thesis involves a redefinition of classical Hollywood style as vernacular modernism. See, for example, Miriam Bratu Hansen,
The Mass Production of the Senses: Classical Cinema and Vernacular Modernism, in Christine Gledhill and Linda Williams, eds., Reinventing Film Studies
(London, 2000), 33250.
34. Joanne Cantor and Mary Beth Oliver, Developmental Differences in Responses
to Horror, in Stephen Prince, ed., The Horror Film (New Brunswick, NJ, 2004),
22526. See also James B. Weaver III and Ron Tamborini, eds., Horror Films: Current Research on Audience Preferences and Reactions (Mahwah, NJ, 1996).
35. Nol Carroll, The Philosophy of Horror, or Paradoxes of the Heart (London, 1990),
32. For complications and extensions of Carrolls argument, see David J. Russell,
Monster Roundup: Reintegrating the Horror Genre, in Browne, Refiguring
American Film Genres, 23354; and Steven Jay Schneider and Daniel Shaw, eds.,
Dark Thoughts: Philosophic Reflections on Cinematic Horror (Lanham, MD, 2003).
127
REP110_05
3/24/04
2:06 PM
Page 128
36. Robin Wood, An Introduction to the American Horror Film, in Barry Keith
Grant and Christopher Sharrett, eds., Planks of Reason: Essays on the Horror Film,
rev. ed. (Lanham, MD, 2004), 117, 113, 11113.
37. Ibid., 119, 134.
38. Ibid., 135, 136.
39. Robin Wood, Fresh Meat, Film Comment 44, no. 1 (January/February 2008): 31,
29. For Wood on Romeros first three Living Dead films, see his Hollywood from
Vietnam to Reagan . . . and Beyond (New York, 2003), 63119, 28794. For arguments that complicate Woods claims, see Murray Smith, A(moral) Monstrosity,
in Michael Grant, ed., The Modern Fantastic: The Films of David Cronenberg (Westport, CT, 2000), 6983; Lowenstein, Shocking Representation, 15464; and Adam
Lowenstein, A Reintroduction to the American Horror Film, in Cindy Lucia,
Roy Grundmann, and Arthur Simon, eds., The Blackwell History of American Film
(Oxford, forthcoming).
40. Wood, Fresh Meat, 31.
41. Wood, An Introduction, 113.
42. Gunning, Now You See It, Now You Dont, 10.
43. Ibid., 11, 7.
44. See Walter Benjamin, The Origin of German Tragic Drama, trans. John Osborne
(1928; reprint, London, 1996).
45. In this sense, my formulation of the allegorical moment challenges more narrowly focused attempts to isolate certain spectator reactions to horror films as if
feelings of fear and horror, for example, can be definitively specified and
separated. See Steven Jay Schneider, Toward an Aesthetics of Cinematic Horror, in Prince, The Horror Film, 13149.
46. Gunning, An Aesthetic of Astonishment, 876.
47. See ibid., 86276; and Tom Gunning, Animated Pictures: Tales of Cinemas
Forgotten Future, After 100 Years of Films, in Gledhill and Williams, Reinventing Film Studies, 31631.
48. Maxim Gorky, review of Lumire program, Nizhegorodski listok, July 4, 1896;
reprinted (trans. Leda Swan) in Jay Leyda, Kino: A History of the Russian and
Soviet Film (New York, 1973), 407, 408. See also Gorkys related review from the
same year reprinted as Gorky on the Films, 1896, trans. Leonard Mins, in
Herbert Kline, ed., New Theatre and Film 1934 to 1937: An Anthology (San Diego,
1985), 22731. For related context and discussion, see Yuri Tsivian, Early Cinema in Russia and Its Cultural Reception, trans. Alan Bodger (London, 1994).
49. Gorky, review of Lumire, 408.
50. Gorky, Gorky on the Films, 1896, 228.
51. Gorky, review of Lumire, 408.
52. Ibid., 407.
128
R E P R E S E N TAT I O N S